Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: Goldsmith/"Stone" v. Baty/"Goliath" - getting started!

Expand Messages
  • rlbaty50
    Speaking of Claudia (e.g., see Todd s recent post)... If there are two Goldsmith s, it would appear that Leon may have done something to keep Mark from
    Message 1 of 10 , Apr 2, 2011
    • 0 Attachment
      Speaking of Claudia (e.g., see Todd's recent post)...

      If there are two Goldsmith's, it would appear that "Leon" may have done something to keep "Mark" from taking up and making his affirmative case for whatever it is "Mark" thought his "Stone" argument had to do with my "Goliath of GRAS" and the claims I have made for it.

      "Leon" has posted a flurry of messages to the Goldsmith list, the latest being as follows:

      http://groups.yahoo.com/group/BATY_DEFEATED/message/437

      > From: Goldsmith (aka "Leon"/"idboubtit80")
      > To: Baty_Defeated@yahoogroups.com
      > Date: Saturday, April 2, 2011
      >
      > Subject: Stone vs. Goliath...
      >
      > Mark Goldsmith has won by default.
      >
      > "Leon Goldsmith"

      "Leon" has that backwards, of course. When the affirmative, "Mark" doesn't even show up to take the "lead" and make his case for whatever it is he is claiming regarding his "Stone" argument, it is "Mark" who is in "default".

      Alas, I will allow "Mark" more time to speak for himself regarding his desire to take the "lead" and give me something to "follow".

      I'm looking forward to an open, honest, good faith, concurrent discussion of whatever it is "Mark" happens to think his "Stone" argument has to do with my "Goliath of GRAS" and the claims I have made for it.

      See below for additional details regarding my effort to allow "Mark" to take the "lead" in the discussion "Mark" has proposed.

      Sincerely,
      Robert Baty

      --- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com, "rlbaty50" <rlbaty@...> wrote:

      Still waiting on Goldsmith or anyone else who may wish to take up Goldsmith's
      position in leading with his "Stone" argument and making whatever affirmative
      claims he may have thought to promote regarding it.

      See:

      http://groups.yahoo.com/group/BATY_DEFEATED/message/429
      http://groups.yahoo.com/group/BATY_DEFEATED/message/430
      http://groups.yahoo.com/group/BATY_DEFEATED/message/431
      http://groups.yahoo.com/group/BATY_DEFEATED/message/433
      --- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com, "rlbaty50" <rlbaty@...> wrote:

      In response to my posting here, there have been some messages posted to
      Goldsmith's list that indicates some do not understand the affirmative/lead
      position that Goldsmith is wanting and that I have been trying to grant to him.

      Here's a reminder, followed by my additional comments and original posting under
      the above subject header:

      http://groups.yahoo.com/group/BATY_DEFEATED/message/403

      > From: Goldsmith (aka "Mark"/"jr27750108")
      > To: Baty_Defeated
      > Date: Friday, April 1, 2011
      >
      > Subject: Stone of David Argument
      >
      > I send this invitation out to any
      > who would "man up" and try to take
      > on impeaching the argument and it's
      > validity here where we can also
      > discuss other matters of mutual
      > interest.
      >
      > Sincerely,
      > Mark Goldsmith

      So, if Goldsmith will take the lead, make the case for whatever claims he wishes
      to make regarding his "Stone" and its "validity", I will consider a response. I
      will also be glad to negotiate any logistical details that Goldsmith may wish to
      have further considered.

      Sincerely,
      Robert Baty

      --- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com, "rlbaty50" <rlbaty@...> wrote:

      I encouraged Goldsmith to take the lead in laying out his proposals for having
      the concurrent discussion he was wanting regarding our respective arguments
      (copied following my name below).

      Since Goldmsith has not returned to take the lead and the details for producing
      the discussion he was asking for are not too difficult, I thought I would
      further encourage him to take the lead by helping him out with some details,
      after which I will wait for him to take up the lead he was wanting to take and
      see if he would lead us through a concurrent discussion of these important
      public issues.

      What I am proposing:

      (1)

      Goldsmith should submit his initial message to both his list and this list
      making the claims he believes represents our mutual interests in his "Stone" and
      my "Goliath" arguments and offering whatever narrative he wishes regarding his
      claims.

      (2)

      I will approve and post Goldsmith's message here unedited, after confirming he
      has posted the same on his list.

      (3)

      If Goldsmith's message does reflect our mutual interests in our respective
      arguments, I will submit my reply to this list and Goldmsith's list.

      (4)

      Goldsmith will approve and post my message to his list unedited.

      (5)

      The subject header recommended is:
      > Goldsmith/"Stone" v. Baty/"Goliath"

      (6)

      ALL CAPS is not to be used.

      (7)

      The message posting cycle proposed above will continue to the extent of the
      interest of the parties.

      Sincerely,
      Robert Baty

      The "Stone of David" by Goldsmith

      > Major Premise:
      >
      >> IF (A) there is empirical evidence that
      >> says everything began over a period
      >> of more than six 24-hour days, and
      >
      >> IF (B) there is empirical evidence
      >> interpreted by some to mean it was
      >> more than six 24-hour days, and
      >
      >> IF (C) the Bible says that it was
      >> six 24-hour days,
      >
      >> THEN (D) the interpretation of the
      >> empirical evidence is wrong.

      > Minor Premise:
      >
      >> (A) There is empirical evidence that
      >> says everything began over a period
      >> of more than six 24-hour days, and
      >
      >> (B) there is empirical evidence
      >> interpreted by some to mean it was
      >> more than six 24-hour days, and
      >
      >> (C) the Bible says that it was
      >> six 24-hour days.

      > Conclusion:
      >
      > (D) The interpretation of the empirical
      > evidence by some is wrong.

      The "Goliath of GRAS" by Baty:

      Major premise:

      > IF (A) God's word (the text) says
      > everything began over a period
      > of six days, and
      >
      > IF (B) God's word is interpreted by
      > some to mean it was six 24-hour
      > days occurring a few thousand
      > years ago, and
      >
      > IF (C) there is empirical
      > evidence that some thing is
      > actually much older than a
      > few thousand years,
      >
      > THEN (D) the interpretation of
      > the text by some is wrong.

      Minor premise:

      > (A) God's word (the text) says
      > everything began over a period
      > of six days, and
      >
      > (B) God's word is interpreted by
      > some to mean it was six 24-hour
      > days occurring a few thousand
      > years ago, and
      >
      > (C) there is empirical
      > evidence that some thing is
      > actually much older than a few
      > thousand years.

      Conclusion:

      > (D) The interpretation of the
      > text by some is wrong.

      -------------------
      -------------------
    • rlbaty50
      It still appears as if Leon is continuing to restrain Mark in order that Mark is not able to take up the lead Mark wanted me to follow and which I
      Message 2 of 10 , Apr 2, 2011
      • 0 Attachment
        It still "appears" as if "Leon" is continuing to restrain "Mark" in order that "Mark" is not able to take up the lead "Mark" wanted me to follow and which I have volunteered to do.

        I'll continue waiting in hopes that "Mark" might escape the clutches of "Leon" and provide the legitimate lead for me to follow and so produce an analysis of "Mark's" "Stone" argument and its relevance, if any, to my "Goliath of GRAS" and the claims I have made for it.

        See following for historical details:

        --- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com, "rlbaty50" <rlbaty@...> wrote:

        Speaking of Claudia (e.g., see Todd's recent post)...

        If there are two Goldsmith's, it would appear that "Leon" may have done
        something to keep "Mark" from taking up and making his affirmative case for
        whatever it is "Mark" thought his "Stone" argument had to do with my "Goliath of
        GRAS" and the claims I have made for it.

        "Leon" has posted a flurry of messages to the Goldsmith list, the latest being
        as follows:

        http://groups.yahoo.com/group/BATY_DEFEATED/message/437

        > From: Goldsmith (aka "Leon"/"idboubtit80")
        > To: Baty_Defeated@yahoogroups.com
        > Date: Saturday, April 2, 2011
        >
        > Subject: Stone vs. Goliath...
        >
        > Mark Goldsmith has won by default.
        >
        > "Leon Goldsmith"

        "Leon" has that backwards, of course. When the affirmative, "Mark" doesn't even
        show up to take the "lead" and make his case for whatever it is he is claiming
        regarding his "Stone" argument, it is "Mark" who is in "default".

        Alas, I will allow "Mark" more time to speak for himself regarding his desire to
        take the "lead" and give me something to "follow".

        I'm looking forward to an open, honest, good faith, concurrent discussion of
        whatever it is "Mark" happens to think his "Stone" argument has to do with my
        "Goliath of GRAS" and the claims I have made for it.

        See below for additional details regarding my effort to allow "Mark" to take the
        "lead" in the discussion "Mark" has proposed.

        Sincerely,
        Robert Baty

        --- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com, "rlbaty50" <rlbaty@...> wrote:

        Still waiting on Goldsmith or anyone else who may wish to take up Goldsmith's
        position in leading with his "Stone" argument and making whatever affirmative
        claims he may have thought to promote regarding it.

        See:

        http://groups.yahoo.com/group/BATY_DEFEATED/message/429
        http://groups.yahoo.com/group/BATY_DEFEATED/message/430
        http://groups.yahoo.com/group/BATY_DEFEATED/message/431
        http://groups.yahoo.com/group/BATY_DEFEATED/message/433
        --- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com, "rlbaty50" <rlbaty@...> wrote:

        In response to my posting here, there have been some messages posted to
        Goldsmith's list that indicates some do not understand the affirmative/lead
        position that Goldsmith is wanting and that I have been trying to grant to him.

        Here's a reminder, followed by my additional comments and original posting under
        the above subject header:

        http://groups.yahoo.com/group/BATY_DEFEATED/message/403

        > From: Goldsmith (aka "Mark"/"jr27750108")
        > To: Baty_Defeated
        > Date: Friday, April 1, 2011
        >
        > Subject: Stone of David Argument
        >
        > I send this invitation out to any
        > who would "man up" and try to take
        > on impeaching the argument and it's
        > validity here where we can also
        > discuss other matters of mutual
        > interest.
        >
        > Sincerely,
        > Mark Goldsmith

        So, if Goldsmith will take the lead, make the case for whatever claims he wishes
        to make regarding his "Stone" and its "validity", I will consider a response. I
        will also be glad to negotiate any logistical details that Goldsmith may wish to
        have further considered.

        Sincerely,
        Robert Baty

        --- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com, "rlbaty50" <rlbaty@...> wrote:

        I encouraged Goldsmith to take the lead in laying out his proposals for having
        the concurrent discussion he was wanting regarding our respective arguments
        (copied following my name below).

        Since Goldmsith has not returned to take the lead and the details for producing
        the discussion he was asking for are not too difficult, I thought I would
        further encourage him to take the lead by helping him out with some details,
        after which I will wait for him to take up the lead he was wanting to take and
        see if he would lead us through a concurrent discussion of these important
        public issues.

        What I am proposing:

        (1)

        Goldsmith should submit his initial message to both his list and this list
        making the claims he believes represents our mutual interests in his "Stone" and
        my "Goliath" arguments and offering whatever narrative he wishes regarding his
        claims.

        (2)

        I will approve and post Goldsmith's message here unedited, after confirming he
        has posted the same on his list.

        (3)

        If Goldsmith's message does reflect our mutual interests in our respective
        arguments, I will submit my reply to this list and Goldmsith's list.

        (4)

        Goldsmith will approve and post my message to his list unedited.

        (5)

        The subject header recommended is:
        > Goldsmith/"Stone" v. Baty/"Goliath"

        (6)

        ALL CAPS is not to be used.

        (7)

        The message posting cycle proposed above will continue to the extent of the
        interest of the parties.

        Sincerely,
        Robert Baty

        The "Stone of David" by Goldsmith

        > Major Premise:
        >
        >> IF (A) there is empirical evidence that
        >> says everything began over a period
        >> of more than six 24-hour days, and
        >
        >> IF (B) there is empirical evidence
        >> interpreted by some to mean it was
        >> more than six 24-hour days, and
        >
        >> IF (C) the Bible says that it was
        >> six 24-hour days,
        >
        >> THEN (D) the interpretation of the
        >> empirical evidence is wrong.

        > Minor Premise:
        >
        >> (A) There is empirical evidence that
        >> says everything began over a period
        >> of more than six 24-hour days, and
        >
        >> (B) there is empirical evidence
        >> interpreted by some to mean it was
        >> more than six 24-hour days, and
        >
        >> (C) the Bible says that it was
        >> six 24-hour days.

        > Conclusion:
        >
        > (D) The interpretation of the empirical
        > evidence by some is wrong.

        The "Goliath of GRAS" by Baty:

        Major premise:

        > IF (A) God's word (the text) says
        > everything began over a period
        > of six days, and
        >
        > IF (B) God's word is interpreted by
        > some to mean it was six 24-hour
        > days occurring a few thousand
        > years ago, and
        >
        > IF (C) there is empirical
        > evidence that some thing is
        > actually much older than a
        > few thousand years,
        >
        > THEN (D) the interpretation of
        > the text by some is wrong.

        Minor premise:

        > (A) God's word (the text) says
        > everything began over a period
        > of six days, and
        >
        > (B) God's word is interpreted by
        > some to mean it was six 24-hour
        > days occurring a few thousand
        > years ago, and
        >
        > (C) there is empirical
        > evidence that some thing is
        > actually much older than a few
        > thousand years.

        Conclusion:

        > (D) The interpretation of the
        > text by some is wrong.

        -------------------
        -------------------
      • rlbaty50
        ... Leon just posted another message on the Goldsmith list. Leon is further indicating he s not going to let Mark loose to take the lead with me
        Message 3 of 10 , Apr 2, 2011
        • 0 Attachment
          Status:

          > "Goliath of GRAS"...still the one to beat!

          "Leon" just posted another message on the Goldsmith list. "Leon" is further indicating he's not going to let "Mark" loose to take the lead with me following so as to produce an analysis of "Mark's" latest effort to create an argument he thought was worth something as to the analysis of my "Goliath of GRAS" and the claims I have made for it.

          The latest from "Leon" indicates that, as "Mark's" spokesman, "Mark" is NOT going to be showing up to take the lead and that "Mark" was just pretending to be interested in a discussion of the merits of his "Stone" argument.

          That's fine with me, but I will continue to wait and see if "Mark" ever escapes the clutches of "Leon" and is able to speak for himself, if he actually is a himself apart from "Leon".

          Here's the link to the latest from "Leon":

          > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/BATY_DEFEATED/message/444
          > Date: Saturday, April 2, 2011
          > Time: 8:13 PM MT

          See the following for the history of this issue:

          --- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com, "rlbaty50" <rlbaty@...> wrote:

          It still "appears" as if "Leon" is continuing to restrain "Mark" in order that
          "Mark" is not able to take up the lead "Mark" wanted me to follow and which I
          have volunteered to do.

          I'll continue waiting in hopes that "Mark" might escape the clutches of "Leon"
          and provide the legitimate lead for me to follow and so produce an analysis of
          "Mark's" "Stone" argument and its relevance, if any, to my "Goliath of GRAS" and
          the claims I have made for it.

          See following for historical details:

          --- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com, "rlbaty50" <rlbaty@...> wrote:

          Speaking of Claudia (e.g., see Todd's recent post)...

          If there are two Goldsmith's, it would appear that "Leon" may have done
          something to keep "Mark" from taking up and making his affirmative case for
          whatever it is "Mark" thought his "Stone" argument had to do with my "Goliath of
          GRAS" and the claims I have made for it.

          "Leon" has posted a flurry of messages to the Goldsmith list, the latest being
          as follows:

          http://groups.yahoo.com/group/BATY_DEFEATED/message/437

          > From: Goldsmith (aka "Leon"/"idboubtit80")
          > To: Baty_Defeated@yahoogroups.com
          > Date: Saturday, April 2, 2011
          >
          > Subject: Stone vs. Goliath...
          >
          > Mark Goldsmith has won by default.
          >
          > "Leon Goldsmith"

          "Leon" has that backwards, of course. When the affirmative, "Mark" doesn't even
          show up to take the "lead" and make his case for whatever it is he is claiming
          regarding his "Stone" argument, it is "Mark" who is in "default".

          Alas, I will allow "Mark" more time to speak for himself regarding his desire to
          take the "lead" and give me something to "follow".

          I'm looking forward to an open, honest, good faith, concurrent discussion of
          whatever it is "Mark" happens to think his "Stone" argument has to do with my
          "Goliath of GRAS" and the claims I have made for it.

          See below for additional details regarding my effort to allow "Mark" to take the
          "lead" in the discussion "Mark" has proposed.

          Sincerely,
          Robert Baty

          --- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com, "rlbaty50" <rlbaty@...> wrote:

          Still waiting on Goldsmith or anyone else who may wish to take up Goldsmith's
          position in leading with his "Stone" argument and making whatever affirmative
          claims he may have thought to promote regarding it.

          See:

          http://groups.yahoo.com/group/BATY_DEFEATED/message/429
          http://groups.yahoo.com/group/BATY_DEFEATED/message/430
          http://groups.yahoo.com/group/BATY_DEFEATED/message/431
          http://groups.yahoo.com/group/BATY_DEFEATED/message/433
          --- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com, "rlbaty50" <rlbaty@...> wrote:

          In response to my posting here, there have been some messages posted to
          Goldsmith's list that indicates some do not understand the affirmative/lead
          position that Goldsmith is wanting and that I have been trying to grant to him.

          Here's a reminder, followed by my additional comments and original posting under
          the above subject header:

          http://groups.yahoo.com/group/BATY_DEFEATED/message/403

          > From: Goldsmith (aka "Mark"/"jr27750108")
          > To: Baty_Defeated
          > Date: Friday, April 1, 2011
          >
          > Subject: Stone of David Argument
          >
          > I send this invitation out to any
          > who would "man up" and try to take
          > on impeaching the argument and it's
          > validity here where we can also
          > discuss other matters of mutual
          > interest.
          >
          > Sincerely,
          > Mark Goldsmith

          So, if Goldsmith will take the lead, make the case for whatever claims he wishes
          to make regarding his "Stone" and its "validity", I will consider a response. I
          will also be glad to negotiate any logistical details that Goldsmith may wish to
          have further considered.

          Sincerely,
          Robert Baty

          --- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com, "rlbaty50" <rlbaty@...> wrote:

          I encouraged Goldsmith to take the lead in laying out his proposals for having
          the concurrent discussion he was wanting regarding our respective arguments
          (copied following my name below).

          Since Goldmsith has not returned to take the lead and the details for producing
          the discussion he was asking for are not too difficult, I thought I would
          further encourage him to take the lead by helping him out with some details,
          after which I will wait for him to take up the lead he was wanting to take and
          see if he would lead us through a concurrent discussion of these important
          public issues.

          What I am proposing:

          (1)

          Goldsmith should submit his initial message to both his list and this list
          making the claims he believes represents our mutual interests in his "Stone" and
          my "Goliath" arguments and offering whatever narrative he wishes regarding his
          claims.

          (2)

          I will approve and post Goldsmith's message here unedited, after confirming he
          has posted the same on his list.

          (3)

          If Goldsmith's message does reflect our mutual interests in our respective
          arguments, I will submit my reply to this list and Goldmsith's list.

          (4)

          Goldsmith will approve and post my message to his list unedited.

          (5)

          The subject header recommended is:
          > Goldsmith/"Stone" v. Baty/"Goliath"

          (6)

          ALL CAPS is not to be used.

          (7)

          The message posting cycle proposed above will continue to the extent of the
          interest of the parties.

          Sincerely,
          Robert Baty

          The "Stone of David" by Goldsmith

          > Major Premise:
          >
          >> IF (A) there is empirical evidence that
          >> says everything began over a period
          >> of more than six 24-hour days, and
          >
          >> IF (B) there is empirical evidence
          >> interpreted by some to mean it was
          >> more than six 24-hour days, and
          >
          >> IF (C) the Bible says that it was
          >> six 24-hour days,
          >
          >> THEN (D) the interpretation of the
          >> empirical evidence is wrong.

          > Minor Premise:
          >
          >> (A) There is empirical evidence that
          >> says everything began over a period
          >> of more than six 24-hour days, and
          >
          >> (B) there is empirical evidence
          >> interpreted by some to mean it was
          >> more than six 24-hour days, and
          >
          >> (C) the Bible says that it was
          >> six 24-hour days.

          > Conclusion:
          >
          > (D) The interpretation of the empirical
          > evidence by some is wrong.

          The "Goliath of GRAS" by Baty:

          Major premise:

          > IF (A) God's word (the text) says
          > everything began over a period
          > of six days, and
          >
          > IF (B) God's word is interpreted by
          > some to mean it was six 24-hour
          > days occurring a few thousand
          > years ago, and
          >
          > IF (C) there is empirical
          > evidence that some thing is
          > actually much older than a
          > few thousand years,
          >
          > THEN (D) the interpretation of
          > the text by some is wrong.

          Minor premise:

          > (A) God's word (the text) says
          > everything began over a period
          > of six days, and
          >
          > (B) God's word is interpreted by
          > some to mean it was six 24-hour
          > days occurring a few thousand
          > years ago, and
          >
          > (C) there is empirical
          > evidence that some thing is
          > actually much older than a few
          > thousand years.

          Conclusion:

          > (D) The interpretation of the
          > text by some is wrong.

          -------------------
          -------------------
        • rlbaty50
          Leon continues to post a flurry of new messages on his preferred list; giving the further appearance that he is restraining Mark from returning to this
          Message 4 of 10 , Apr 3, 2011
          • 0 Attachment
            "Leon" continues to post a flurry of new messages on his preferred list; giving the further appearance that he is restraining "Mark" from returning to this list to take up the lead "Mark" indicated he wanted to take in the concurrent discussion "Mark" proposed regarding our respective arguments.

            "Mark",

            If you are not "Leon", and if you can escape the clutches of "Leon", I'm still waiting to follow your lead if you will take it up.

            (Actually, you are still welcome to take the lead in the proposed analysis of your "Stone" argument even if you are "Leon".)

            See the following for history and details regarding my efforts to help you, "Mark", get started:

            --- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com, "rlbaty50" <rlbaty@...> wrote:

            Status:

            > "Goliath of GRAS"...still the one to beat!

            "Leon" just posted another message on the Goldsmith list. "Leon" is further
            indicating he's not going to let "Mark" loose to take the lead with me following
            so as to produce an analysis of "Mark's" latest effort to create an argument he
            thought was worth something as to the analysis of my "Goliath of GRAS" and the
            claims I have made for it.

            The latest from "Leon" indicates that, as "Mark's" spokesman, "Mark" is NOT
            going to be showing up to take the lead and that "Mark" was just pretending to
            be interested in a discussion of the merits of his "Stone" argument.

            That's fine with me, but I will continue to wait and see if "Mark" ever escapes
            the clutches of "Leon" and is able to speak for himself, if he actually is a
            himself apart from "Leon".

            Here's the link to the latest from "Leon":

            > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/BATY_DEFEATED/message/444
            > Date: Saturday, April 2, 2011
            > Time: 8:13 PM MT

            See the following for the history of this issue:

            --- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com, "rlbaty50" <rlbaty@...> wrote:

            It still "appears" as if "Leon" is continuing to restrain "Mark" in order that
            "Mark" is not able to take up the lead "Mark" wanted me to follow and which I
            have volunteered to do.

            I'll continue waiting in hopes that "Mark" might escape the clutches of "Leon"
            and provide the legitimate lead for me to follow and so produce an analysis of
            "Mark's" "Stone" argument and its relevance, if any, to my "Goliath of GRAS" and
            the claims I have made for it.

            See following for historical details:

            --- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com, "rlbaty50" <rlbaty@...> wrote:

            Speaking of Claudia (e.g., see Todd's recent post)...

            If there are two Goldsmith's, it would appear that "Leon" may have done
            something to keep "Mark" from taking up and making his affirmative case for
            whatever it is "Mark" thought his "Stone" argument had to do with my "Goliath of
            GRAS" and the claims I have made for it.

            "Leon" has posted a flurry of messages to the Goldsmith list, the latest being
            as follows:

            http://groups.yahoo.com/group/BATY_DEFEATED/message/437

            > From: Goldsmith (aka "Leon"/"idboubtit80")
            > To: Baty_Defeated@yahoogroups.com
            > Date: Saturday, April 2, 2011
            >
            > Subject: Stone vs. Goliath...
            >
            > Mark Goldsmith has won by default.
            >
            > "Leon Goldsmith"

            "Leon" has that backwards, of course. When the affirmative, "Mark" doesn't even
            show up to take the "lead" and make his case for whatever it is he is claiming
            regarding his "Stone" argument, it is "Mark" who is in "default".

            Alas, I will allow "Mark" more time to speak for himself regarding his desire to
            take the "lead" and give me something to "follow".

            I'm looking forward to an open, honest, good faith, concurrent discussion of
            whatever it is "Mark" happens to think his "Stone" argument has to do with my
            "Goliath of GRAS" and the claims I have made for it.

            See below for additional details regarding my effort to allow "Mark" to take the
            "lead" in the discussion "Mark" has proposed.

            Sincerely,
            Robert Baty

            --- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com, "rlbaty50" <rlbaty@...> wrote:

            Still waiting on Goldsmith or anyone else who may wish to take up Goldsmith's
            position in leading with his "Stone" argument and making whatever affirmative
            claims he may have thought to promote regarding it.

            See:

            http://groups.yahoo.com/group/BATY_DEFEATED/message/429
            http://groups.yahoo.com/group/BATY_DEFEATED/message/430
            http://groups.yahoo.com/group/BATY_DEFEATED/message/431
            http://groups.yahoo.com/group/BATY_DEFEATED/message/433
            --- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com, "rlbaty50" <rlbaty@...> wrote:

            In response to my posting here, there have been some messages posted to
            Goldsmith's list that indicates some do not understand the affirmative/lead
            position that Goldsmith is wanting and that I have been trying to grant to him.

            Here's a reminder, followed by my additional comments and original posting under
            the above subject header:

            http://groups.yahoo.com/group/BATY_DEFEATED/message/403

            > From: Goldsmith (aka "Mark"/"jr27750108")
            > To: Baty_Defeated
            > Date: Friday, April 1, 2011
            >
            > Subject: Stone of David Argument
            >
            > I send this invitation out to any
            > who would "man up" and try to take
            > on impeaching the argument and it's
            > validity here where we can also
            > discuss other matters of mutual
            > interest.
            >
            > Sincerely,
            > Mark Goldsmith

            So, if Goldsmith will take the lead, make the case for whatever claims he wishes
            to make regarding his "Stone" and its "validity", I will consider a response. I
            will also be glad to negotiate any logistical details that Goldsmith may wish to
            have further considered.

            Sincerely,
            Robert Baty

            --- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com, "rlbaty50" <rlbaty@...> wrote:

            I encouraged Goldsmith to take the lead in laying out his proposals for having
            the concurrent discussion he was wanting regarding our respective arguments
            (copied following my name below).

            Since Goldmsith has not returned to take the lead and the details for producing
            the discussion he was asking for are not too difficult, I thought I would
            further encourage him to take the lead by helping him out with some details,
            after which I will wait for him to take up the lead he was wanting to take and
            see if he would lead us through a concurrent discussion of these important
            public issues.

            What I am proposing:

            (1)

            Goldsmith should submit his initial message to both his list and this list
            making the claims he believes represents our mutual interests in his "Stone" and
            my "Goliath" arguments and offering whatever narrative he wishes regarding his
            claims.

            (2)

            I will approve and post Goldsmith's message here unedited, after confirming he
            has posted the same on his list.

            (3)

            If Goldsmith's message does reflect our mutual interests in our respective
            arguments, I will submit my reply to this list and Goldmsith's list.

            (4)

            Goldsmith will approve and post my message to his list unedited.

            (5)

            The subject header recommended is:
            > Goldsmith/"Stone" v. Baty/"Goliath"

            (6)

            ALL CAPS is not to be used.

            (7)

            The message posting cycle proposed above will continue to the extent of the
            interest of the parties.

            Sincerely,
            Robert Baty

            The "Stone of David" by Goldsmith

            > Major Premise:
            >
            >> IF (A) there is empirical evidence that
            >> says everything began over a period
            >> of more than six 24-hour days, and
            >
            >> IF (B) there is empirical evidence
            >> interpreted by some to mean it was
            >> more than six 24-hour days, and
            >
            >> IF (C) the Bible says that it was
            >> six 24-hour days,
            >
            >> THEN (D) the interpretation of the
            >> empirical evidence is wrong.

            > Minor Premise:
            >
            >> (A) There is empirical evidence that
            >> says everything began over a period
            >> of more than six 24-hour days, and
            >
            >> (B) there is empirical evidence
            >> interpreted by some to mean it was
            >> more than six 24-hour days, and
            >
            >> (C) the Bible says that it was
            >> six 24-hour days.

            > Conclusion:
            >
            > (D) The interpretation of the empirical
            > evidence by some is wrong.

            The "Goliath of GRAS" by Baty:

            Major premise:

            > IF (A) God's word (the text) says
            > everything began over a period
            > of six days, and
            >
            > IF (B) God's word is interpreted by
            > some to mean it was six 24-hour
            > days occurring a few thousand
            > years ago, and
            >
            > IF (C) there is empirical
            > evidence that some thing is
            > actually much older than a
            > few thousand years,
            >
            > THEN (D) the interpretation of
            > the text by some is wrong.

            Minor premise:

            > (A) God's word (the text) says
            > everything began over a period
            > of six days, and
            >
            > (B) God's word is interpreted by
            > some to mean it was six 24-hour
            > days occurring a few thousand
            > years ago, and
            >
            > (C) there is empirical
            > evidence that some thing is
            > actually much older than a few
            > thousand years.

            Conclusion:

            > (D) The interpretation of the
            > text by some is wrong.

            -------------------
            -------------------
          • rlbaty50
            I just checked your list, Mark . It appears Leon is still keeping you under his thumb! If only you, Mark , are not Leon and can escape the clutches of
            Message 5 of 10 , Apr 4, 2011
            • 0 Attachment
              I just checked your list, "Mark". It appears "Leon" is still keeping you under his thumb!

              If only you, "Mark", are not "Leon" and can escape the clutches of "Leon" which appear to be restricting you from taking that lead you so much wanted to take and so carry on that discussion of your "Stone" argument as if he had somewhat to do with dealing with my "Goliath of GRAS" and the claims I have made for it.

              I am also willing to allow you to include a consideration of your "Gibberish" argument and the "Hammer" argument.

              Of course, if you are "Leon", you are also welcome to pursue the proposed "lead" in the proposed discussion of one or all of the "Stone", "Gibberish" and "Hammer" arguments as if they had somewhat to do with the "Goliath of GRAS" and the claims I have made for it.

              "Mark"..."Mark Goldsmith"...are you there???

              See following for details and history of the most recent efforts to get "Mark" to take the lead he seemed so desperate to pursue:

              --- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com, "rlbaty50" <rlbaty@...> wrote:

              "Leon" continues to post a flurry of new messages on his preferred list; giving
              the further appearance that he is restraining "Mark" from returning to this list
              to take up the lead "Mark" indicated he wanted to take in the concurrent
              discussion "Mark" proposed regarding our respective arguments.

              "Mark",

              If you are not "Leon", and if you can escape the clutches of "Leon", I'm still
              waiting to follow your lead if you will take it up.

              (Actually, you are still welcome to take the lead in the proposed analysis of
              your "Stone" argument even if you are "Leon".)

              See the following for history and details regarding my efforts to help you,
              "Mark", get started:

              --- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com, "rlbaty50" <rlbaty@...> wrote:

              Status:

              > "Goliath of GRAS"...still the one to beat!

              "Leon" just posted another message on the Goldsmith list. "Leon" is further
              indicating he's not going to let "Mark" loose to take the lead with me following
              so as to produce an analysis of "Mark's" latest effort to create an argument he
              thought was worth something as to the analysis of my "Goliath of GRAS" and the
              claims I have made for it.

              The latest from "Leon" indicates that, as "Mark's" spokesman, "Mark" is NOT
              going to be showing up to take the lead and that "Mark" was just pretending to
              be interested in a discussion of the merits of his "Stone" argument.

              That's fine with me, but I will continue to wait and see if "Mark" ever escapes
              the clutches of "Leon" and is able to speak for himself, if he actually is a
              himself apart from "Leon".

              Here's the link to the latest from "Leon":

              > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/BATY_DEFEATED/message/444
              > Date: Saturday, April 2, 2011
              > Time: 8:13 PM MT

              See the following for the history of this issue:

              --- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com, "rlbaty50" <rlbaty@...> wrote:

              It still "appears" as if "Leon" is continuing to restrain "Mark" in order that
              "Mark" is not able to take up the lead "Mark" wanted me to follow and which I
              have volunteered to do.

              I'll continue waiting in hopes that "Mark" might escape the clutches of "Leon"
              and provide the legitimate lead for me to follow and so produce an analysis of
              "Mark's" "Stone" argument and its relevance, if any, to my "Goliath of GRAS" and
              the claims I have made for it.

              See following for historical details:

              --- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com, "rlbaty50" <rlbaty@...> wrote:

              Speaking of Claudia (e.g., see Todd's recent post)...

              If there are two Goldsmith's, it would appear that "Leon" may have done
              something to keep "Mark" from taking up and making his affirmative case for
              whatever it is "Mark" thought his "Stone" argument had to do with my "Goliath of
              GRAS" and the claims I have made for it.

              "Leon" has posted a flurry of messages to the Goldsmith list, the latest being
              as follows:

              http://groups.yahoo.com/group/BATY_DEFEATED/message/437

              > From: Goldsmith (aka "Leon"/"idboubtit80")
              > To: Baty_Defeated@yahoogroups.com
              > Date: Saturday, April 2, 2011
              >
              > Subject: Stone vs. Goliath...
              >
              > Mark Goldsmith has won by default.
              >
              > "Leon Goldsmith"

              "Leon" has that backwards, of course. When the affirmative, "Mark" doesn't even
              show up to take the "lead" and make his case for whatever it is he is claiming
              regarding his "Stone" argument, it is "Mark" who is in "default".

              Alas, I will allow "Mark" more time to speak for himself regarding his desire to
              take the "lead" and give me something to "follow".

              I'm looking forward to an open, honest, good faith, concurrent discussion of
              whatever it is "Mark" happens to think his "Stone" argument has to do with my
              "Goliath of GRAS" and the claims I have made for it.

              See below for additional details regarding my effort to allow "Mark" to take the
              "lead" in the discussion "Mark" has proposed.

              Sincerely,
              Robert Baty

              --- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com, "rlbaty50" <rlbaty@...> wrote:

              Still waiting on Goldsmith or anyone else who may wish to take up Goldsmith's
              position in leading with his "Stone" argument and making whatever affirmative
              claims he may have thought to promote regarding it.

              See:

              http://groups.yahoo.com/group/BATY_DEFEATED/message/429
              http://groups.yahoo.com/group/BATY_DEFEATED/message/430
              http://groups.yahoo.com/group/BATY_DEFEATED/message/431
              http://groups.yahoo.com/group/BATY_DEFEATED/message/433

              --- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com, "rlbaty50" <rlbaty@...> wrote:

              In response to my posting here, there have been some messages posted to
              Goldsmith's list that indicates some do not understand the affirmative/lead
              position that Goldsmith is wanting and that I have been trying to grant to him.

              Here's a reminder, followed by my additional comments and original posting under
              the above subject header:

              http://groups.yahoo.com/group/BATY_DEFEATED/message/403

              > From: Goldsmith (aka "Mark"/"jr27750108")
              > To: Baty_Defeated
              > Date: Friday, April 1, 2011
              >
              > Subject: Stone of David Argument
              >
              > I send this invitation out to any
              > who would "man up" and try to take
              > on impeaching the argument and it's
              > validity here where we can also
              > discuss other matters of mutual
              > interest.
              >
              > Sincerely,
              > Mark Goldsmith

              So, if Goldsmith will take the lead, make the case for whatever claims he wishes
              to make regarding his "Stone" and its "validity", I will consider a response. I
              will also be glad to negotiate any logistical details that Goldsmith may wish to
              have further considered.

              Sincerely,
              Robert Baty

              --- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com, "rlbaty50" <rlbaty@...> wrote:

              I encouraged Goldsmith to take the lead in laying out his proposals for having
              the concurrent discussion he was wanting regarding our respective arguments
              (copied following my name below).

              Since Goldmsith has not returned to take the lead and the details for producing
              the discussion he was asking for are not too difficult, I thought I would
              further encourage him to take the lead by helping him out with some details,
              after which I will wait for him to take up the lead he was wanting to take and
              see if he would lead us through a concurrent discussion of these important
              public issues.

              What I am proposing:

              (1)

              Goldsmith should submit his initial message to both his list and this list
              making the claims he believes represents our mutual interests in his "Stone" and
              my "Goliath" arguments and offering whatever narrative he wishes regarding his
              claims.

              (2)

              I will approve and post Goldsmith's message here unedited, after confirming he
              has posted the same on his list.

              (3)

              If Goldsmith's message does reflect our mutual interests in our respective
              arguments, I will submit my reply to this list and Goldmsith's list.

              (4)

              Goldsmith will approve and post my message to his list unedited.

              (5)

              The subject header recommended is:
              > Goldsmith/"Stone" v. Baty/"Goliath"

              (6)

              ALL CAPS is not to be used.

              (7)

              The message posting cycle proposed above will continue to the extent of the
              interest of the parties.

              Sincerely,
              Robert Baty

              The "Stone of David" by Goldsmith

              > Major Premise:
              >
              >> IF (A) there is empirical evidence that
              >> says everything began over a period
              >> of more than six 24-hour days, and
              >
              >> IF (B) there is empirical evidence
              >> interpreted by some to mean it was
              >> more than six 24-hour days, and
              >
              >> IF (C) the Bible says that it was
              >> six 24-hour days,
              >
              >> THEN (D) the interpretation of the
              >> empirical evidence is wrong.

              > Minor Premise:
              >
              >> (A) There is empirical evidence that
              >> says everything began over a period
              >> of more than six 24-hour days, and
              >
              >> (B) there is empirical evidence
              >> interpreted by some to mean it was
              >> more than six 24-hour days, and
              >
              >> (C) the Bible says that it was
              >> six 24-hour days.

              > Conclusion:
              >
              > (D) The interpretation of the empirical
              > evidence by some is wrong.

              The "Goliath of GRAS" by Baty:

              Major premise:

              > IF (A) God's word (the text) says
              > everything began over a period
              > of six days, and
              >
              > IF (B) God's word is interpreted by
              > some to mean it was six 24-hour
              > days occurring a few thousand
              > years ago, and
              >
              > IF (C) there is empirical
              > evidence that some thing is
              > actually much older than a
              > few thousand years,
              >
              > THEN (D) the interpretation of
              > the text by some is wrong.

              Minor premise:

              > (A) God's word (the text) says
              > everything began over a period
              > of six days, and
              >
              > (B) God's word is interpreted by
              > some to mean it was six 24-hour
              > days occurring a few thousand
              > years ago, and
              >
              > (C) there is empirical
              > evidence that some thing is
              > actually much older than a few
              > thousand years.

              Conclusion:

              > (D) The interpretation of the
              > text by some is wrong.

              -------------------
              -------------------
            • rlbaty50
              It appears that Leon has still got Mark under wraps; keeping Mark from taking the lead in the discussion Mark was so desperate to engage and which I
              Message 6 of 10 , Apr 5, 2011
              • 0 Attachment
                It appears that "Leon" has still got "Mark" under wraps; keeping "Mark" from taking the lead in the discussion "Mark" was so desperate to engage and which I have been trying to help him produce.

                "Leon" posted the following this morning:

                http://groups.yahoo.com/group/BATY_DEFEATED/message/457

                > From: Goldsmith (aka "Leon"/"idoubtit80")
                > To: Baty_Defeated@yahoogroups.com
                > Date: Tuesday, April 5, 2011
                >
                > Subject: We're still here...
                >
                > (Robert Baty refuses) to engauge
                > us in honest discussion
                >
                > "Leon Goldsmith"

                I'll be glad to engage "Leon" and his mouse and anyone else who is able to "come out" and do what "Mark" proposed; take the lead and set up the concurrent discssion of the "Stone", the "Hammer" and/or the "Gibberish" and what they might have to do with my "Goliath of GRAS" and the claims I have made for it...step by step.

                Or, if they want to forsake their pretender arguments and just settle on a discussion of the "Goliath of GRAS" and the claims I have made for it, I will be glad to oblige.

                In the meantime, I'm still waiting for the return/escape of "Mark" and his lead so that I might follow and respond to his lead in the discussion he proposed that we have.

                See the following for details and recent history; which explains why, in part, young-earth creation-science promoters have failed in their scientific pretensions and legal challenges.

                Sincerely,
                Robert Baty

                --- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com, "rlbaty50" <rlbaty@...> wrote:

                I just checked your list, "Mark". It appears "Leon" is still keeping you under his thumb!

                If only you, "Mark", are not "Leon" and can escape the clutches of "Leon" which appear to be restricting you from taking that lead you so much wanted to take and so carry on that discussion of your "Stone" argument as if he had somewhat to do with dealing with my "Goliath of GRAS" and the claims I have made for it.

                I am also willing to allow you to include a consideration of your "Gibberish" argument and the "Hammer" argument.

                Of course, if you are "Leon", you are also welcome to pursue the proposed "lead" in the proposed discussion of one or all of the "Stone", "Gibberish" and "Hammer" arguments as if they had somewhat to do with the "Goliath of GRAS" and the claims I have made for it.

                "Mark"..."Mark Goldsmith"...are you there???

                See following for details and history of the most recent efforts to get "Mark" to take the lead he seemed so desperate to pursue:

                --- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com, "rlbaty50" <rlbaty@> wrote:

                "Leon" continues to post a flurry of new messages on his preferred list; giving
                the further appearance that he is restraining "Mark" from returning to this list
                to take up the lead "Mark" indicated he wanted to take in the concurrent
                discussion "Mark" proposed regarding our respective arguments.

                "Mark",

                If you are not "Leon", and if you can escape the clutches of "Leon", I'm still
                waiting to follow your lead if you will take it up.

                (Actually, you are still welcome to take the lead in the proposed analysis of
                your "Stone" argument even if you are "Leon".)

                See the following for history and details regarding my efforts to help you,
                "Mark", get started:

                --- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com, "rlbaty50" <rlbaty@> wrote:

                Status:

                "Goliath of GRAS"...still the one to beat!

                "Leon" just posted another message on the Goldsmith list. "Leon" is further
                indicating he's not going to let "Mark" loose to take the lead with me following
                so as to produce an analysis of "Mark's" latest effort to create an argument he
                thought was worth something as to the analysis of my "Goliath of GRAS" and the
                claims I have made for it.

                The latest from "Leon" indicates that, as "Mark's" spokesman, "Mark" is NOT
                going to be showing up to take the lead and that "Mark" was just pretending to
                be interested in a discussion of the merits of his "Stone" argument.

                That's fine with me, but I will continue to wait and see if "Mark" ever escapes
                the clutches of "Leon" and is able to speak for himself, if he actually is a
                himself apart from "Leon".

                Here's the link to the latest from "Leon":

                > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/BATY_DEFEATED/message/444
                > Date: Saturday, April 2, 2011
                > Time: 8:13 PM MT

                See the following for the history of this issue:

                --- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com, "rlbaty50" <rlbaty@> wrote:

                It still "appears" as if "Leon" is continuing to restrain "Mark" in order that
                "Mark" is not able to take up the lead "Mark" wanted me to follow and which I
                have volunteered to do.

                I'll continue waiting in hopes that "Mark" might escape the clutches of "Leon"
                and provide the legitimate lead for me to follow and so produce an analysis of
                "Mark's" "Stone" argument and its relevance, if any, to my "Goliath of GRAS" and
                the claims I have made for it.

                See following for historical details:

                --- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com, "rlbaty50" <rlbaty@> wrote:

                Speaking of Claudia (e.g., see Todd's recent post)...

                If there are two Goldsmith's, it would appear that "Leon" may have done
                something to keep "Mark" from taking up and making his affirmative case for
                whatever it is "Mark" thought his "Stone" argument had to do with my "Goliath of
                GRAS" and the claims I have made for it.

                "Leon" has posted a flurry of messages to the Goldsmith list, the latest being
                as follows:

                http://groups.yahoo.com/group/BATY_DEFEATED/message/437

                > From: Goldsmith (aka "Leon"/"idboubtit80")
                > To: Baty_Defeated@yahoogroups.com
                > Date: Saturday, April 2, 2011
                >
                > Subject: Stone vs. Goliath...
                >
                > Mark Goldsmith has won by default.
                >
                > "Leon Goldsmith"

                "Leon" has that backwards, of course. When the affirmative, "Mark" doesn't even
                show up to take the "lead" and make his case for whatever it is he is claiming
                regarding his "Stone" argument, it is "Mark" who is in "default".

                Alas, I will allow "Mark" more time to speak for himself regarding his desire to
                take the "lead" and give me something to "follow".

                I'm looking forward to an open, honest, good faith, concurrent discussion of
                whatever it is "Mark" happens to think his "Stone" argument has to do with my
                "Goliath of GRAS" and the claims I have made for it.

                See below for additional details regarding my effort to allow "Mark" to take the
                "lead" in the discussion "Mark" has proposed.

                Sincerely,
                Robert Baty

                --- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com, "rlbaty50" <rlbaty@> wrote:

                Still waiting on Goldsmith or anyone else who may wish to take up Goldsmith's
                position in leading with his "Stone" argument and making whatever affirmative
                claims he may have thought to promote regarding it.

                See:

                http://groups.yahoo.com/group/BATY_DEFEATED/message/429
                http://groups.yahoo.com/group/BATY_DEFEATED/message/430
                http://groups.yahoo.com/group/BATY_DEFEATED/message/431
                http://groups.yahoo.com/group/BATY_DEFEATED/message/433

                --- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com, "rlbaty50" <rlbaty@> wrote:

                In response to my posting here, there have been some messages posted to
                Goldsmith's list that indicates some do not understand the affirmative/lead
                position that Goldsmith is wanting and that I have been trying to grant to him.

                Here's a reminder, followed by my additional comments and original posting under
                the above subject header:

                http://groups.yahoo.com/group/BATY_DEFEATED/message/403

                > From: Goldsmith (aka "Mark"/"jr27750108")
                > To: Baty_Defeated
                > Date: Friday, April 1, 2011
                >
                > Subject: Stone of David Argument
                >
                > I send this invitation out to any
                > who would "man up" and try to take
                > on impeaching the argument and it's
                > validity here where we can also
                > discuss other matters of mutual
                > interest.
                >
                > Sincerely,
                > Mark Goldsmith

                So, if Goldsmith will take the lead, make the case for whatever claims he wishes
                to make regarding his "Stone" and its "validity", I will consider a response. I
                will also be glad to negotiate any logistical details that Goldsmith may wish to
                have further considered.

                Sincerely,
                Robert Baty

                --- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com, "rlbaty50" <rlbaty@> wrote:

                I encouraged Goldsmith to take the lead in laying out his proposals for having
                the concurrent discussion he was wanting regarding our respective arguments
                (copied following my name below).

                Since Goldmsith has not returned to take the lead and the details for producing
                the discussion he was asking for are not too difficult, I thought I would
                further encourage him to take the lead by helping him out with some details,
                after which I will wait for him to take up the lead he was wanting to take and
                see if he would lead us through a concurrent discussion of these important
                public issues.

                What I am proposing:

                (1)

                Goldsmith should submit his initial message to both his list and this list
                making the claims he believes represents our mutual interests in his "Stone" and
                my "Goliath" arguments and offering whatever narrative he wishes regarding his
                claims.

                (2)

                I will approve and post Goldsmith's message here unedited, after confirming he
                has posted the same on his list.

                (3)

                If Goldsmith's message does reflect our mutual interests in our respective
                arguments, I will submit my reply to this list and Goldmsith's list.

                (4)

                Goldsmith will approve and post my message to his list unedited.

                (5)

                The subject header recommended is:
                > Goldsmith/"Stone" v. Baty/"Goliath"

                (6)

                ALL CAPS is not to be used.

                (7)

                The message posting cycle proposed above will continue to the extent of the
                interest of the parties.

                Sincerely,
                Robert Baty

                The "Stone of David" by Goldsmith

                > Major Premise:
                >
                >> IF (A) there is empirical evidence that
                >> says everything began over a period
                >> of more than six 24-hour days, and
                >
                >> IF (B) there is empirical evidence
                >> interpreted by some to mean it was
                >> more than six 24-hour days, and
                >
                >> IF (C) the Bible says that it was
                >> six 24-hour days,
                >
                >> THEN (D) the interpretation of the
                >> empirical evidence is wrong.

                > Minor Premise:
                >
                >> (A) There is empirical evidence that
                >> says everything began over a period
                >> of more than six 24-hour days, and
                >
                >> (B) there is empirical evidence
                >> interpreted by some to mean it was
                >> more than six 24-hour days, and
                >
                >> (C) the Bible says that it was
                >> six 24-hour days.

                > Conclusion:
                >
                > (D) The interpretation of the empirical
                > evidence by some is wrong.

                The "Goliath of GRAS" by Baty:

                Major premise:

                > IF (A) God's word (the text) says
                > everything began over a period
                > of six days, and
                >
                > IF (B) God's word is interpreted by
                > some to mean it was six 24-hour
                > days occurring a few thousand
                > years ago, and
                >
                > IF (C) there is empirical
                > evidence that some thing is
                > actually much older than a
                > few thousand years,
                >
                > THEN (D) the interpretation of
                > the text by some is wrong.

                Minor premise:

                > (A) God's word (the text) says
                > everything began over a period
                > of six days, and
                >
                > (B) God's word is interpreted by
                > some to mean it was six 24-hour
                > days occurring a few thousand
                > years ago, and
                >
                > (C) there is empirical
                > evidence that some thing is
                > actually much older than a few
                > thousand years.

                Conclusion:

                > (D) The interpretation of the
                > text by some is wrong.

                -------------------
                -------------------
              • rlbaty50
                Leon was quick to respond to this subject thread, but Leon would neither let his mouse or Mark out in order that one of them might take the lead; and
                Message 7 of 10 , Apr 5, 2011
                • 0 Attachment
                  "Leon" was quick to respond to this subject thread, but "Leon" would neither let his "mouse" or "Mark" out in order that one of them might take the lead; and "Leon" indicated he was not up to taking the lead such as "Mark" had earlier expressed a desire to pursue.

                  Here's the link to "Leon's" latest:

                  http://groups.yahoo.com/group/BATY_DEFEATED/message/460

                  "Mark",

                  If you are out there, I'm still waiting to follow your lead or the lead any other contender wants to take in the disucssion such as you were so desirous of producing.

                  See the following for details and history.

                  Sincerely,
                  Robert Baty


                  --- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com, "rlbaty50" <rlbaty@...> wrote:

                  It appears that "Leon" has still got "Mark" under wraps; keeping "Mark" from
                  taking the lead in the discussion "Mark" was so desperate to engage and which I
                  have been trying to help him produce.

                  "Leon" posted the following this morning:

                  http://groups.yahoo.com/group/BATY_DEFEATED/message/457

                  > From: Goldsmith (aka "Leon"/"idoubtit80")
                  > To: Baty_Defeated@yahoogroups.com
                  > Date: Tuesday, April 5, 2011
                  >
                  > Subject: We're still here...
                  >
                  > (Robert Baty refuses) to engauge
                  > us in honest discussion
                  >
                  > "Leon Goldsmith"

                  I'll be glad to engage "Leon" and his mouse and anyone else who is able to "come
                  out" and do what "Mark" proposed; take the lead and set up the concurrent
                  discssion of the "Stone", the "Hammer" and/or the "Gibberish" and what they
                  might have to do with my "Goliath of GRAS" and the claims I have made for
                  it...step by step.

                  Or, if they want to forsake their pretender arguments and just settle on a
                  discussion of the "Goliath of GRAS" and the claims I have made for it, I will be
                  glad to oblige.

                  In the meantime, I'm still waiting for the return/escape of "Mark" and his lead
                  so that I might follow and respond to his lead in the discussion he proposed
                  that we have.

                  See the following for details and recent history; which explains why, in part,
                  young-earth creation-science promoters have failed in their scientific
                  pretensions and legal challenges.

                  Sincerely,
                  Robert Baty

                  --- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com, "rlbaty50" <rlbaty@...> wrote:

                  I just checked your list, "Mark". It appears "Leon" is still keeping you under
                  his thumb!

                  If only you, "Mark", are not "Leon" and can escape the clutches of "Leon" which
                  appear to be restricting you from taking that lead you so much wanted to take
                  and so carry on that discussion of your "Stone" argument as if he had somewhat
                  to do with dealing with my "Goliath of GRAS" and the claims I have made for it.

                  I am also willing to allow you to include a consideration of your "Gibberish"
                  argument and the "Hammer" argument.

                  Of course, if you are "Leon", you are also welcome to pursue the proposed "lead"
                  in the proposed discussion of one or all of the "Stone", "Gibberish" and
                  "Hammer" arguments as if they had somewhat to do with the "Goliath of GRAS" and
                  the claims I have made for it.

                  "Mark"..."Mark Goldsmith"...are you there???

                  See following for details and history of the most recent efforts to get "Mark"
                  to take the lead he seemed so desperate to pursue:

                  --- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com, "rlbaty50" <rlbaty@> wrote:

                  "Leon" continues to post a flurry of new messages on his preferred list; giving
                  the further appearance that he is restraining "Mark" from returning to this list
                  to take up the lead "Mark" indicated he wanted to take in the concurrent
                  discussion "Mark" proposed regarding our respective arguments.

                  "Mark",

                  If you are not "Leon", and if you can escape the clutches of "Leon", I'm still
                  waiting to follow your lead if you will take it up.

                  (Actually, you are still welcome to take the lead in the proposed analysis of
                  your "Stone" argument even if you are "Leon".)

                  See the following for history and details regarding my efforts to help you,
                  "Mark", get started:

                  --- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com, "rlbaty50" <rlbaty@> wrote:

                  Status:

                  "Goliath of GRAS"...still the one to beat!

                  "Leon" just posted another message on the Goldsmith list. "Leon" is further
                  indicating he's not going to let "Mark" loose to take the lead with me following
                  so as to produce an analysis of "Mark's" latest effort to create an argument he
                  thought was worth something as to the analysis of my "Goliath of GRAS" and the
                  claims I have made for it.

                  The latest from "Leon" indicates that, as "Mark's" spokesman, "Mark" is NOT
                  going to be showing up to take the lead and that "Mark" was just pretending to
                  be interested in a discussion of the merits of his "Stone" argument.

                  That's fine with me, but I will continue to wait and see if "Mark" ever escapes
                  the clutches of "Leon" and is able to speak for himself, if he actually is a
                  himself apart from "Leon".

                  Here's the link to the latest from "Leon":

                  > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/BATY_DEFEATED/message/444
                  > Date: Saturday, April 2, 2011
                  > Time: 8:13 PM MT

                  See the following for the history of this issue:

                  --- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com, "rlbaty50" <rlbaty@> wrote:

                  It still "appears" as if "Leon" is continuing to restrain "Mark" in order that
                  "Mark" is not able to take up the lead "Mark" wanted me to follow and which I
                  have volunteered to do.

                  I'll continue waiting in hopes that "Mark" might escape the clutches of "Leon"
                  and provide the legitimate lead for me to follow and so produce an analysis of
                  "Mark's" "Stone" argument and its relevance, if any, to my "Goliath of GRAS" and
                  the claims I have made for it.

                  See following for historical details:

                  --- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com, "rlbaty50" <rlbaty@> wrote:

                  Speaking of Claudia (e.g., see Todd's recent post)...

                  If there are two Goldsmith's, it would appear that "Leon" may have done
                  something to keep "Mark" from taking up and making his affirmative case for
                  whatever it is "Mark" thought his "Stone" argument had to do with my "Goliath of
                  GRAS" and the claims I have made for it.

                  "Leon" has posted a flurry of messages to the Goldsmith list, the latest being
                  as follows:

                  http://groups.yahoo.com/group/BATY_DEFEATED/message/437

                  > From: Goldsmith (aka "Leon"/"idboubtit80")
                  > To: Baty_Defeated@yahoogroups.com
                  > Date: Saturday, April 2, 2011
                  >
                  > Subject: Stone vs. Goliath...
                  >
                  > Mark Goldsmith has won by default.
                  >
                  > "Leon Goldsmith"

                  "Leon" has that backwards, of course. When the affirmative, "Mark" doesn't even
                  show up to take the "lead" and make his case for whatever it is he is claiming
                  regarding his "Stone" argument, it is "Mark" who is in "default".

                  Alas, I will allow "Mark" more time to speak for himself regarding his desire to
                  take the "lead" and give me something to "follow".

                  I'm looking forward to an open, honest, good faith, concurrent discussion of
                  whatever it is "Mark" happens to think his "Stone" argument has to do with my
                  "Goliath of GRAS" and the claims I have made for it.

                  See below for additional details regarding my effort to allow "Mark" to take the
                  "lead" in the discussion "Mark" has proposed.

                  Sincerely,
                  Robert Baty

                  --- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com, "rlbaty50" <rlbaty@> wrote:

                  Still waiting on Goldsmith or anyone else who may wish to take up Goldsmith's
                  position in leading with his "Stone" argument and making whatever affirmative
                  claims he may have thought to promote regarding it.

                  See:

                  http://groups.yahoo.com/group/BATY_DEFEATED/message/429
                  http://groups.yahoo.com/group/BATY_DEFEATED/message/430
                  http://groups.yahoo.com/group/BATY_DEFEATED/message/431
                  http://groups.yahoo.com/group/BATY_DEFEATED/message/433

                  --- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com, "rlbaty50" <rlbaty@> wrote:

                  In response to my posting here, there have been some messages posted to
                  Goldsmith's list that indicates some do not understand the affirmative/lead
                  position that Goldsmith is wanting and that I have been trying to grant to him.

                  Here's a reminder, followed by my additional comments and original posting under
                  the above subject header:

                  http://groups.yahoo.com/group/BATY_DEFEATED/message/403

                  > From: Goldsmith (aka "Mark"/"jr27750108")
                  > To: Baty_Defeated
                  > Date: Friday, April 1, 2011
                  >
                  > Subject: Stone of David Argument
                  >
                  > I send this invitation out to any
                  > who would "man up" and try to take
                  > on impeaching the argument and it's
                  > validity here where we can also
                  > discuss other matters of mutual
                  > interest.
                  >
                  > Sincerely,
                  > Mark Goldsmith

                  So, if Goldsmith will take the lead, make the case for whatever claims he wishes
                  to make regarding his "Stone" and its "validity", I will consider a response. I
                  will also be glad to negotiate any logistical details that Goldsmith may wish to
                  have further considered.

                  Sincerely,
                  Robert Baty

                  --- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com, "rlbaty50" <rlbaty@> wrote:

                  I encouraged Goldsmith to take the lead in laying out his proposals for having
                  the concurrent discussion he was wanting regarding our respective arguments
                  (copied following my name below).

                  Since Goldmsith has not returned to take the lead and the details for producing
                  the discussion he was asking for are not too difficult, I thought I would
                  further encourage him to take the lead by helping him out with some details,
                  after which I will wait for him to take up the lead he was wanting to take and
                  see if he would lead us through a concurrent discussion of these important
                  public issues.

                  What I am proposing:

                  (1)

                  Goldsmith should submit his initial message to both his list and this list
                  making the claims he believes represents our mutual interests in his "Stone" and
                  my "Goliath" arguments and offering whatever narrative he wishes regarding his
                  claims.

                  (2)

                  I will approve and post Goldsmith's message here unedited, after confirming he
                  has posted the same on his list.

                  (3)

                  If Goldsmith's message does reflect our mutual interests in our respective
                  arguments, I will submit my reply to this list and Goldmsith's list.

                  (4)

                  Goldsmith will approve and post my message to his list unedited.

                  (5)

                  The subject header recommended is:
                  > Goldsmith/"Stone" v. Baty/"Goliath"

                  (6)

                  ALL CAPS is not to be used.

                  (7)

                  The message posting cycle proposed above will continue to the extent of the
                  interest of the parties.

                  Sincerely,
                  Robert Baty

                  The "Stone of David" by Goldsmith

                  > Major Premise:
                  >
                  >> IF (A) there is empirical evidence that
                  >> says everything began over a period
                  >> of more than six 24-hour days, and
                  >
                  >> IF (B) there is empirical evidence
                  >> interpreted by some to mean it was
                  >> more than six 24-hour days, and
                  >
                  >> IF (C) the Bible says that it was
                  >> six 24-hour days,
                  >
                  >> THEN (D) the interpretation of the
                  >> empirical evidence is wrong.

                  > Minor Premise:
                  >
                  >> (A) There is empirical evidence that
                  >> says everything began over a period
                  >> of more than six 24-hour days, and
                  >
                  >> (B) there is empirical evidence
                  >> interpreted by some to mean it was
                  >> more than six 24-hour days, and
                  >
                  >> (C) the Bible says that it was
                  >> six 24-hour days.

                  > Conclusion:
                  >
                  > (D) The interpretation of the empirical
                  > evidence by some is wrong.

                  The "Goliath of GRAS" by Baty:

                  Major premise:

                  > IF (A) God's word (the text) says
                  > everything began over a period
                  > of six days, and
                  >
                  > IF (B) God's word is interpreted by
                  > some to mean it was six 24-hour
                  > days occurring a few thousand
                  > years ago, and
                  >
                  > IF (C) there is empirical
                  > evidence that some thing is
                  > actually much older than a
                  > few thousand years,
                  >
                  > THEN (D) the interpretation of
                  > the text by some is wrong.

                  Minor premise:

                  > (A) God's word (the text) says
                  > everything began over a period
                  > of six days, and
                  >
                  > (B) God's word is interpreted by
                  > some to mean it was six 24-hour
                  > days occurring a few thousand
                  > years ago, and
                  >
                  > (C) there is empirical
                  > evidence that some thing is
                  > actually much older than a few
                  > thousand years.

                  Conclusion:

                  > (D) The interpretation of the
                  > text by some is wrong.

                  -------------------
                  -------------------
                Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.